Join the new world

Lets get this last item out of the way before I get to the serious stuff.

My Voting Recor😛

Financial Proposals

Law 67845 http://www.erepublik.com/en/USA/law/67845
2870 FIM from the country accounts to Congressional Budget Office?
- Voted Yes

Law 67984 http://www.erepublik.com/en/USA/law/67984
825.1 MXN from the country accounts to Congressional Budget Office?
- Voted Yes

Law 68055 http://www.erepublik.com/en/USA/law/68055
99999 USD from the country accounts to Congressional Budget Office?
- Voted Yes

Law 68174 http://www.erepublik.com/en/USA/law/68174
transfer 99999 USD from the country accounts to Congressional Budget Office?
- Voted Yes

Law 68309 http://www.erepublik.com/en/USA/law/68309
Junk Tax change
- Voted No

Law 68308 http://www.erepublik.com/en/USA/law/68308
2359 RON from the country accounts to Congressional Budget Office?
- Voted Yes

Military Proposals

Law 67878 http://www.erepublik.com/en/USA/law/67878
Alliance with Russia
- Voted Yes
Times have changed, haven’t they? 🙂

http://www.erepublik.com/en/USA/law/68004
Peace with Mexico
- Voted No
We need to region swap to reach Polish occupied regions in Mexico.

http://www.erepublik.com/en/USA/law/68057
Natural Enemy on Portugal
- Voted Yes
In response to their declaration of war


Presidential Proposal
Law 68247 http://www.erepublik.com/en/USA/law/68247
New Welcome message
- Voted Yes


Granted Citizenship
shadow6463 - http://www.erepublik.com/en/citizen/profile/887162
Zechs Marquis - http://www.erepublik.com/en/citizen/profile/1787708



^ (That logo is still a work in progress)

Here is my review of the recent constitutional amendment

Firstly: I agreed that there had to be change to the old system. - With the recent accusations of corruption and inefficiency spanning back to World War III (as far as I’m aware of) I feel that there needs to be a level of oversight on the military. (Anything receiving government funds should be reviewed)

On transparency of the debate: I was one of the many that asked for all the amendment’s discussion and votes to be made public, but for some reason OP’s kept starting the threads in private and the Moderators kept them there at the OP’s request.

On the evolution of the amendment: As the discussion went on I asked for Congress to edit the constitution in small increments, one vote at a time. However the powers at be decided to totally rewrite basically everything, they then rushed the rewrite to a vote.

Here is what was passed in congress (bold marks my comments)

“The text of the Constitutional Appendix: Military Organization & Roles

The Joint Chiefs of Staff shall be composed of the Commanding Officers, Executive Officers, the Chairman, and the Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (when not also serving as a Branch CO or XO). The Joint Chiefs of Staff shall, collectively, set policy for the military at large, and execute the orders of the President. Each Branch shall set policy and procedure internally, except when in conflict with a military wide policy, or Constitutional directive.”

Nothing here is different then as it was before, it’s just establishing the basic military structure. lets move along.

“The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs shall be elected by the full membership of the Joint Chiefs, from their own membership, every three months. No person may serve more than two successive terms. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs shall have the following duties:”

This is where we can find a lot of controversy. This amendment forbids the Chairman from holding its position for any period longer than 6 months. This is a position that is perhaps one of the most important in the country under the president. You don’t get here by rallying two clicker: you have to not only know what you’re doing, but prove it. If a Chairman is able to hold his position up to 6months then where is the logic in forbidding him/her to serve longer? If there is any office that needs term limits, then let’s look at the Presidency and Congress before the military is knocked up. I understand the need for fresh ideas, but when it comes to the military
experience > untested ideas.

HERE IS A CAMPAIGN PROMISE FOR MY REELECTION
– I WILL FIGHT AND VOTE TO REPEAL THE TERM LIMIT.

1. The Chairman coordinates battles and directs support as set by the objectives of the President.
2. The Chairman shall act as a conduit and point of contact to the military for the President and Congress.
3. The Chairman shall advise the president on the capabilities and best use of the military, in concert with the President’s foreign policy.
4. The Chairman shall regularly report to the President on the state of readiness of the military.
5. The Chairman shall receive full access to Congressional and Executive forums, in order to advise them on matters pertaining to the military.
6. The Chairman shall oversee the implementation of military policy, as set by the Joint Chiefs.
7. The Chairman shall lead discussions of the Joint Chiefs, and may cast a second, tie-breaking vote, when required.
8. The Chairman shall appoint Branch Commanding Officers, when there is no Executive Officer to succeed them, pending JCS approval.
9. The Chairman shall follow any and all orders issued to him by the President.
10. The Chairman shall appoint a Vice-Chairman to assist him in these duties, and to act in his place, when he is unavailable.
a. The Vice-Chairman serves at the pleasure of the Chairman, and may be removed from his position by him at any time.
b. The Vice-Chairman shall act as Chairman, whenever the position is vacant.
11. The Chairman shall have the authority to appoint Advisers to the JCS, to serve a specific function, listing that function in the post announcing their appointment, on the JCS sub-forum.

This is typically what was going on in the old system, but has now been made official with the proper procedures listed.

The Branch Commanding Officers shall appoint their Executive Officers, and all other officers in their branch, when a vacancy occurs. Appointment of Branch Executive Officers must be confirmed, via vote, by a majority of the sitting JCS. Upon the retirement or dismissal of a Commanding Officer, the Executive Officer shall be elevated to Commanding Officer. Should a vacancy in both positions occur simultaneously the most senior Officer of the Branch shall be acting Commanding Officer, until such time as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs can appoint a Commanding Officer. Such appointment shall require the approval of a majority of the Joint Chiefs.

The President and Speaker of the House shall be given JCS forum access, via masks labeled ‘President’ and ‘Speaker’ on the military forum, in order to allow for better communication, and ease of information sharing. The President and Speaker shall be given the following information, as requeste😛

1. Budgets by branch
2. A listing of all government owned communes, broken down by branch
3. A listing of any jointly owned operations
4. Standard supply allotment by branch
5. The total number of troops, and average strength by branch
6. Joint military orders (via military forum access)

This isn’t an issue either, The President, Speaker, and Chairman shall share this information with Congress, as needed, in order to facilitate the budgeting process. The Speaker shall be responsible for transmitting this information to the Select Committee on Intelligence, as he receives updated information. Should the Speaker not be a member of the SCI, for whatever reason, the Senior Deputy Speaker, who is also a member of the SCI, shall serve as the Congressional representative on the JCS forums, and shall execute any other responsibilities listed herein.

Now this next part is another source of huge controversy, and where I disagree with my party.

The President shall have the authority to dismiss the Chairman, pending a Congressional vote affirming or overturning his decision. A simple majority of sitting Congressmen shall be required to overturn a Presidential dismissal of the Chairman.

Congress is required to have a 2/3 majority AND the president’s approval to remove the Chairman. That would only happen in extraordinary conditions. Then according by law a new Chairman would be elected by the JCS. So I don’t know how we can jump to conclusions that this ability would be abused by congress to power grab the military and appoint its own inept elitists… I think that would be too difficult plan, and impossible to implement with the current system.

Congress may initiate a vote to remove any member of the Joint Chiefs. Ten Congressmen must approve of the motion, and two-thirds of sitting Congressmen must vote in the affirmative to pass the measure.

Votes to remove the CJCS or any JCS member, that originate from within the JCS, may be initiated by any member of the JCS, simply by posting, on the JCS sub-forum, that they wish to do so. Should at least two other members support this motion, the President shall open a thread to vote Yea or Nay on the removal of said member. Such a measure requires two-thirds of the votes cast to pass.

Upon the creation of a vacancy in the position of CJCS the President shall open a thread, on the JCS sub-forum, accepting nominations for the position. Three nominations will be required to be considered. Upon the passage of 24 hours, the President shall announce those persons nominated, and open a voting thread. Should no person receive a majority, the candidate with the fewest number of votes shall be dropped, and a second vote shall take place. Voting shall last for 24 hours, or until every member has voted.

Now this is probably where there’s confusion – assuming the President’s approval is still needed, Congress can’t remove and appoint its own to the JCS. Maybe this needs to be clarified with an amendment, and if so I will vote to rewrite this section to remove concerns.

Anyway, that was the whole law that was passed



– most of congress voted in favor of the bill with very little opposition. However this law still needs to be tweaked and is largely incomplete without mentioning the blacklist. I for one want PigInZen’s Military Eligibility Act to be included, the proposal calls for a public listing of the blacklist (including reasons) and an official appeal process. This is something I have been promoting many months ago.

HERE IS A CAMPAIGN PROMISE FOR MY REELECTION
– I WILL FIGHT AND VOTE TO INCLUDE PIGINZEN’S MILITARY ELIGIBILITY ACT